June 21, 2007

We've been talking a lot about carrots and onions, and I've had to interact with various on-line politicos who may hate me for political reasons but may also suffer from a kind of art-deafness. Why are they so into politics? I'm not. I'm an outsider to their game. I went to art school. Sometimes I think it's like talking about color to someone who's color blind or melody to someone who's tone deaf. They encounter someone with a more artistic take on the political landscape, and they can only think to say "you're crazy." What can I do to help?

Well, the artist Evan Izer has been reading my posts, and he sent me these photographs of some of his artworks (and gave me permission to display them here).

Of course, as has been stated already on this blog, sometimes a carrot is just a carrot. And in the case of this less-than-appetizing image from James Lileks' "Gallery Of Regrettable Food, a carrot may be the only edible component of a culinary atrocity that resembles nothing so much as an Elizabethan collar made of spoiled cheese. And overgrown with weeds, to boot.

PS: As a man whose red hair was far more vivid when I was a kid, I had to endure the witticisms of people who must have thought the nickname "carrot top" was new to me. Now my daughter, whose hair is a similarly vibrant red, gets to hear the same thing from a new generation of numbskulls. Naturally, her reaction is the same as mine was: The top of a carrot is green -- not red. "No one will listen, sweetheart," I tell her as gently as possible, "no one will listen."

Take the first image: The sliced carrots are only a sacrificial garnish to the slicing board and floor made of sliced and finished tree. The image as a slice of room in a slice of life is made more ominous by visual lines being sliced by normals and diags, to include the edges of the frame. We know there is a slicer just out of range of the scene who has classic P hostility.

Why are they so into politics? I'm not. I'm an outsider to their game. I went to art school.

Gee Ann, did you forget you also went to law school and you are a freaking law school professor and teach constitutional law? But you're not into politics and are an outsider to their game? Uh huh.

You are not an artist. You are not even a very convincing art critic. Taking lots of pictures and posting them on your website or recording yourself watching American Idol drunk and alone does not constitute art.

zzzzzzzzzz. Although the Professor may simply trying to eke a few more pagehits out of this, the gruel is getting mighty thin. There's a celar difference between reading into a text to discern the meaning the reader ascribes to it and reading into a text to descern the intended meaning(s) of the author. The former finds expression in post-colonial, critical race, and some woman's studies (among other things).* The latter is the prototypical modernist (and, to an extent, positivist) approach.

But to suggest that the former analysis = the latter analysis reveals that the Professor either (1) really doesn't understand the difference or (2) is confident that her readers are too stupid to understand the difference.

In other words, you're arguing apples. Your artist has provided an orange.

So, yes, I've thought about it. I get what you're trying to do. I still think you're only digging the hole deeper.

von

*There's a strong basis to call approach No. 1 post-modernism. While it's true that it found great expression in Derrida's theory of the iterability of text, my impression is that it doesn't quite belong within the original post-modern movement. Others, better informed that I on such things, may disagree.

We've been talking a lot about carrots and onions, and I've had to interact with various on-line politicos who may hate me for political reasons but may also suffer from a kind of art-deafness.

Let’s do a little textual analysis!! Remember: Professor A-House is very careful with words. Look at the ones she choose here: “I’ve had to interact with varios on-line politicos…”

Had to. From the woman who claims to avoid blogging about any obvious topics – well, save the 2008 presidential campaign; remember: she went to art school – lest her carefully measured number of readers think that she felt in any way, well, compelled.

But now that Annie has whipped up her highest readership numbers ever—look, look at my numbers, she exclaims, dazzled by the discovery that saying vagina a lot leads to more internet hits—you can be damn sure she is, well, compelled to write about this day after day.

Not only that, she has even been compelled to “interact” with others.

Poor, pitiful Annie. She was forced to do out and “interact” with this mean, nasty people who are all ganging up and her and saying mean things!!

You might want to seek some kind of psychological attention for this, Annie. Seriously.

Or just keep writing posts like his. I see pure art in the law professor who nails herself to the cross screaming, but I’m just an art school graduate!!!

Oh, so yes, it does it help. You are coming through loud and clear, Annie.

"Gee Ann, did you forget you also went to law school and you are a freaking law school professor and teach constitutional law? But you're not into politics and are an outsider to their game?"

I enjoy observing political behavior from the outside. I think I'm in a better position to see what people are doing because I'm not so invested in outcomes, and I am genuinely interested in human behavior. Get it?

Wow. What a lot of hostility. Ann's artistic ability is evident in her photos. She quite obviously has an eye.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh on her artistic ability. Her photography is decent. But if she wasn't so condescending to those who disagree with her or find her analysis insipid, people wouldn't be so mean to her.

1) The second photo makes me think of a badly hand-rolled cigar or over-sized joint.

2) you also went to law school and you are a freaking law school professor and teach constitutional law? But you're not into politics and are an outsider to their game?

At last! Someone, somewhere finally admitted that they believe the law, the constitution, law school professors, lawyers, and law school grads are, by definition, inherently, primarily and prescriptively about politics!

All those words you wrote, and it didn't occur to you that an artist’s/writer’s/director’s intended meaning is just the tip of the iceberg? Tip, heh. Works are nearly always suffused with subconscious-driven themes and symbology-- it’s the stuff of lit, art and film analysis to consider whether the artist succeeds at the intentional, and this requires us to examine “accidental”, ”hidden” or intuitive elements to see whether they reinforce intent at different levels, introduce extraneous or distracting subtext, or even work at cross purposes to intent. Yes, it's all subjective, but it helps if we labor under similar experience of culture and convention, both of which change over time, of course, but we deal.

Pretend I name-dropped a language theorist, please. Not going to bother with looking one up who hasn't deconstructed the meaning of diploma.

AJD: Poor, pitiful Annie. She was forced to do out and “interact” with this mean, nasty people who are all ganging up and her and saying mean things!!

I find it instructive. She draws out the brownshirts of the nutroots and reminds me why I stand against the socialist weasel parasites of the Left. If they had their way, there would be no freedom of expression.

Ok....I am still trying to hang in here. What I am hearing from Ann and those that appreciate her blogging is that she is kind of a performance artist (e.g. Laurie Anderson) that needs to be experienced in her totality to really 'get' her.

Those who react negatively to her, according to Ann's base are either idiots, fools, or are characterologically flawed (i.e. humorless).

Those who just don't get her, but are not mean about it, are simply less complete human beings, though through no fault of their own. Kinda like people who just cannot stomach calamari.

Ann, shares the following about herself :

"I enjoy observing political behavior from the outside. I think I'm in a better position to see what people are doing because I'm not so invested in outcomes, and I am genuinely interested in human behavior. Get it?"

Got it:

I recall my voices of my mentors reminding me that the act of observing can change that which is observed.

I think this may have been one of the reasons that Freud tried to position himself outside the purview of his patients, so that his presence influenced them as little as possible as they engaged in free association. Analysts train for years (requiring one or more experiences with their own analysis) in their efforts to strengthen their capacity to maintain neutrality.

For me, the sharpest observers of human and political activity are able grasp the interactive basis of behavior and the observer's contribution to it. Reich termed it "Listening with the third ear".

Those who react negatively to her, according to Ann's base are either idiots, fools, or are characterologically flawed (i.e. humorless).

Or leftist brownshirts who seek to shut her down because she doesn't toe the Party line. We've gotten alot of that lately. Apparently, she's not allowed to call herself a democrat because of her views on national security. I can understand that, seeing that the Left is allied with Al Queda in this war.

Jane, thanks. I certainly agree with the broad points. But given that Althouse is using an intended meaning to explain how she derived an unintended on, I think the point apt. And I only felt the need to name (really, discipline) drop because the Professor is always misunderstood by folks who aren't clever enough to get her. I thought she would appreciate the response.

Wait, is that an after-the-fact explication or was it intended all along to suck you and rile you up so that you comment in response? Am I dropping some Derrida on your derry because I'm a prick or because I'm only acting like a prick to make you be a prick?* And you just don't understand because you're not only a prick but a stupid prick?

Frankly, I think your comment reflects your irrational anti-vonania, rather than any reasonable critique of my position. Also, imagine that I used some clever play on words to make your name rhyme with vagina and penis at the same time. Now I say how sorry I am that you can't take a joke and/or have no sense of humor. At this stage, I think we're ready for an insult regarding your sexual proclivities or abilities. Finally, wrap up with another complaint how all the liberals hate me because I refuse to bow down to them.

I mean, you've seen that act before, right? So just imagine that I did it too.

I recall my voices of my mentors reminding me that the act of observing can change that which is observed.

You are thinking of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle which of course states that the mere process of trying to measure or observe something changes it.

If they had their way, there would be no freedom of expression.

It's just amazing that this claim is made from by the right, but when the calls come to suppress artistic expression, it is almost always from the right, not the left. It's not a coincidence that Harry Potter is the number one book on targeted for removal from school libraries.

At last! Someone, somewhere finally admitted that they believe the law, the constitution, law school professors, lawyers, and law school grads are, by definition, inherently, primarily and prescriptively about politics!

Well of course, the constitution is a political document and the law grew out of politics and political, economic and social necessity.

Of course I am sure this will raise the ire of Simon and he will go off and pontificate about how the law is a pure metaphysical being that exists outside of human existence and is eternal, immutable, and as close to God on earth as man can get (and of course that the Constitution is divinely inspired which is why it must be read literally and as the founders meant it when they wrote it).

But of course Simon, and all his fellow textualists, originalists (and please don't bore us with the difference between the two) or whatever they call themselves, are simply wrong. The founders couldn't even agree on what the constitution meant when they wrote it, so to pretend there is one true meaning is foolish and to try and discern that meaning 200+ years later even more so.

It's just amazing that this claim is made from by the right, but when the calls come to suppress artistic expression, it is almost always from the right, not the left.

Nope. Take a look at the Fairness Doctrine. Conservative talk radio was started because of basic market economics, because they were driven out of the MSM. Funny how those pushing the Fairness Doctrine never apply it to ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/BBC/PBS/NYTs/LA Times/Wapo.

And Harry Potter censors? Please. A fringe group of christians that rightfully believe glamorizing the occult is dangerous to kids. No comparison to the nazi brownshirts of the Left.

Hey! I thought you had banished yourself after admitting to being a Valenti-troll. Now you expect to be extended the courtesy of benefit of doubt? Begone troll. You are a pathetic liar who has broken its word three times over.

It's simple: Ann had fun seeing some subtext in a little vid. She made it splashy and sexual, laughed, and knew that 1) there was some validity to her over-the-top interpretations, and 2) her posts might get a big reaction from people. Then we all found out that there's a vocal "pace" of Dems who can't handle either the fun or the germ of truth about Hill & Bill.

And I only felt the need to name (really, discipline) drop because the Professor is always misunderstood by folks who aren't clever enough to get her.

Ahh, there we go. Those who don't get her are merely lesser mortals. The alternative theory--that Ann really is a clueless idiot--is just too horrible to contemplate. So even as Ann contradicts herself ("It was an elaborate joke and parody that you lesser mortals didn't get but my analysis was absolutely spot on and I don't understand politics but I can fully analyze what Hillary was trying to achieve in her ad but I didn't because it was just an over the top parody of the over the top analysis of the final Sopranos episode which I myself indulged in--was I just parodying then or was I serious--tell me dear readers and I may or may not tell you whether you are fools or in on the joke") and forces her oh so hip and brilliant commenters to make all kinds of contradictory statements to defend her (is she laughing at you because you are unwittingly her stooges?) we are just too stupid to figure it all out.

Maybe we are just standing here and saying, "look, she's not wearing any clothes and her vagina looks like an onion ring."

Not to pull this any further off-track, I have to say I disagree vis a vis Harry Potter. It's exactly the same sort of humorless dogmatic insistence that wants to censor and decry Rowling's books. (And before Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, Tales from the Crypt, Weird Tales and so on.)

The fundamental basis (heh) of this kind of behavior is that you can't joke (or be playful or creative) with/about [whatever].

Well, I DMed dragons campaings on and off for about 20 years. So I understand the complaint from the religious right about occult inlfuences, I jsut don't consider them to be influential [ie. I'm still running campaigns in the FR]

Oh, that's what you're whining about. Take a look at the fairness doctrine. It ain't censorship. It merely restores reasonable requirements on the people who use a very valuable commodity owned by the public for free. Something that is already in their licenses but has been ignored for the last 25 years.

Or leftist brownshirts who seek to shut her down because she doesn't toe the Party line. We've gotten alot of that lately. Apparently, she's not allowed to call herself a democrat because of her views on national security. I can understand that, seeing that the Left is allied with Al Queda in this war.

Or leftist brownshirts who seek to shut her down because she doesn't toe the Party line.

Can you show one post where anyone has called that she not be allowed to post anymore or that she be censored in any way. Granted, a lot of us don't think she should call herself a Democrat since she has precious little good to say about any Democrat for the last few years (although she still claims to vote for Feingold, the most staunchly anti-war Democrat in the Senate, go figure).

Freder, I'll happily debate principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation and construction all day long, and the underlying views on the meaning of law and legal systems, with you or anyone else, notwithstanding the extraordinarily thingrasp of law you routinely demonstrate. But this is hardly the time or the thread.

"How many times have you cried since this whole thing started? B/c if you haven't cried, you must be truly deranged."

LOL. Things like this never make me cry. Nothing related to my blog critics or commenters, in fact, has ever made me cry. Sorry to disappoint you. I have laughed a few times. Right now, I'm smiling wanly. I describe something that made me cry here. And I made myself cry writing this post. And something beautiful made me cry recently, but I can't remember what it was. But blog attacks? Never. Might piss me off, but it doesn't make me sad.

Take the labels off. Make a list of the aims, goals and means of Italian (and to some extent, German) fascism and determine whether, if you knew nothing about the historical assumptions or conventional wisdom, you would associate those characteristics with the American left or the American right.

Now Simon, as a textualist isn't that being a bit unfair (and I'm not even going to address your gross mischaracterization of the modern American left). Shouldn't we judge fascism by the standards of its day. Under those standards, it was a vehemently right wing movement (even though it did often use socialist language and trappings to advance its goals). Hitler hated the communists, the nonaggression pact with Stalin notwithstanding. Who fought the fascists in Spain? It sure wasn't the right. And I would hardly describe the last fascist dictator on the face of the earth a left winger. Hitler's foreign support all came from the right. Heck, his best friend throughout the war in your home nation was the disgraced former king (who should have been tried and hung for treason)--hardly a liberal. Look at his buddies in this country (e.g. Henry Ford, Prescott Bush, Lindbergh--he didn't even give up on Hitler when the war started), they were all on the right. To say that fascism was a left wing movement because they used socialist language to draw in the working classes is like saying Wal-Mart is worker friendly because the promote from within.

Freder,Construing Ann's 4:07 PM comment as a request for commenters to focus on the topic at hand, I deleted my off-topic comments above, except for my 3:46 PM specifically declining to thread-hijack (a wise move as it turns out, in view of Ann's subsequent comment), including the one you replied to. For the same reasons, I decline to engage and suggest we preserve this argument for another time and place where it better relates to the topic at hand.

I dismiss previous criticism about Althouse and art. She does great photos and has an eye for it. Besides, her point was about the "artistic" capacity of politicos, not law profs or justices.

I don't know if a survey has been done that explores the artistic talents of accomplished men and women in politics - much more men honestly because until quite recently, women in politics were limited to queens and such...

We do see some of, if not stellar artistic merit, at least true talent or passion.

US Grant, Churchill, Nixon - without ghost writers - were accomplished writers. (Others like Mao, JFK, Gingrich fared well with ghostwriters)Disraeli a noted patron of arts and decent painter.We see talent in the doodles of Hoover, FDR, Reagan, Nixon, DeGaulle.

In other countries, playrights like Havel and poets like Sultan al-Hibayya have risen to high office.

Many politicians from Nixon and Clinton down to Ashcroft and Scarboro are amateur musicians..

If we consider the greatest in other fields must bring true art to their craft, as I do, George Washington was an artist as General, Hoover the engineering miracle worker of the 20th Century, Hitler the orator-politician, Reagan the modern communicator and weaver of arch-themes.

I think some talent is required to rise to the top. I admit to being mystified by Bush II and Kerry.

It's simple: Ann had fun seeing some subtext in a little vid. She made it splashy and sexual, laughed, and knew that 1) there was some validity to her over-the-top interpretations, and 2) her posts might get a big reaction from people.

We're moving from my original point or your response, but, as a dust mite, I guess I have to go wherever the eyebrows do. Like I've said elsewhere, I think (1) says more about Althouse than anyone else. I don't see it; plus, the whole onion ring thing was a direct takeoff from the Sopranos episode and Bill did have a heart attack. Sometimes an onion ring is just an onion right, and sometimes a carrot is just a carrot: This remains true even if a cigar is never just a cigar with Bill. I mean, surely one can say to Althouse: That reaction is, umm, unique to you without engaging in Althousiana.

Also, as noted, I'm really not a fan of (2).

Then we all found out that there's a vocal "pace" of Dems who can't handle either the fun or the germ of truth about Hill & Bill.

That the Clinton's marriage is complex is a "germ" of truth? That Hillary undoubtably was entitled to -- and took -- her pound of flesh from Bill for standing by him is open to debate? That pretty much everyone handled the "truth" about Hill's and Bill's relationship, oh, nearly ten years ago when Bill was impeached? Do you honestly think that anyone -- including Democrats -- are unaware of or can't handle these facts? This may be a worse defense than the whole onion ring-carrot connection: At least a carrot would make a plausible phallus (if the ad and its context were different).

No, what happened is that Althouse said something weird, has a history of saying somewhat weird things, encouraged folks to respond, and a whole bunch of folks responded by mocking her.

(Again, maybe TRex's post is different, but, since I didn't read it once I saw it was at Firedoglake -- there is some much I won't get into -- I can't say.)

Nothing related to my blog critics or commenters, in fact, has ever made me cry.

Gotcha! Check your "Necrophilia in Wisconsin" post from last September.

Why isn't this thread more about the art work?

Let's see if I can start things off. The carrots in the upper photo are clearly mocking Bush's declining approval rating, thus conveying the artist's message that even carrots are smart enough to hate Bush. Right?

Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you are tone-deaf about art (and that's why you're a politico). Aren't you even interested in the possibility that this could be true? Why not?

Well Ann, that is where you are wrong. I am not tone deaf about art and certain I could hold my own with you although I am just as certain I would not want to discuss art with you because I can see you are an insufferable bore who is absolutely certain that your interpretation is the correct one.

As for the artwork in question. I'm not the only one who doesn't seem to find it very interesting. Check out the comments.

I decline to engage and suggest we preserve this argument for another time and place where it better relates to the topic at hand.

Perhaps you don't find it interesting because you are tone-deaf about art (and that's why you're a politico).

And this seems like a very dubious assertion. People are interested in politics because they are not interested in art? I honestly don't see the connection. Can't you be interested in both? I guess Hitler went into politics because he failed at art. Castro went into Politics because he wasn't good enough to play pro baseball. You apparently went to law school because you weren't a good enough artist.

You frothing left spectrum types aren't very good at art analysis, at least here.

Can't you see that “Frozen Box” looks like the deep-freeze heavens littered with stars? The fact that it’s labeled with a self-consciously feminized cursive “Carrots” and dominated by an inviting center circle with heavenly golden hues and a mound of round carrot slices can mean only two things: that God is a redhead and that He is a She.

Freder Frederson "... I am just as certain I would not want to discuss art with you because I can see you are an insufferable bore who is absolutely certain that your interpretation is the correct one."

You talk about MY certainty??? Look at you! The fact is, I love to have a free form discussion of what a work of art means, and I like hearing lots of alternatives. That you imagine I don't is just another manifestation of YOUR narrow-mindedness.

The fact is, I love to have a free form discussion of what a work of art means, and I like hearing lots of alternatives. That you imagine I don't is just another manifestation of YOUR narrow-mindedness.

Ahem,

Keep thinking about and keep telling me there is no sexual imagery to that. It's FILM. Film uses images that have meaning. It's beat-you-over-the-head meaningful, so how the hell did it get into Clinton's video? She's forbidding her husband to have the hole-shaped item and requiring to limit himself to a pared down prick. Hello?

Freder observed: Deny, deny, deny. You're going on and on because you know I'm right.

'nuff said.

Compelling capture Freder:

I imagine it might be exhilerating to experience the world in discrete moments of the here and now, with no connection to the past and nary a thread to the future. On the other hand, I also wonder if such a fragmented sense of time and self might also occasion moments of absolute terror.

My mentor always warned me about pretentious assholes who took Psych101, and who then try to "slot" everyone into a 'pattern'- while never being intelligent enough to pass Psych 102...

Look man....I will concede that I can be a prentention asshole. But you crossed the line when you accused me of not being intelligent enough to pass Psych 102. I had to take a couple of cracks at it, but I eventually passed second semester psych. So there, I put you in your place...and I demand an apology!

Freder: This is a bit of a nit pick, but your statement of heisenberg uncertainty is the popular interpretation. Heisenberg uncertainty in quantum physics refers to measurement being non-deterministic; we can only describe a physical phenomenon in terms of a probabilistic statement based on some type of distribution. (has to do with the quantum view of electron swarm versus the newtonian orbital view of electrons)

"You talk about MY certainty??? Look at you! The fact is, I love to have a free form discussion of what a work of art means, and I like hearing lots of alternatives. That you imagine I don't is just another manifestation of YOUR narrow-mindedness."

It's not imagined. You don't want to have a "free-form" discussion because each of your responses concern only the crdentials of the person who disagrees with you and nothing to do with the substance of their argument. It is attacking the witness instead of the testimony. You're an authority on politics when your opponent isn't and an outsider with no investment in the outsome when your opponent isn't and you have strong opinions the rest of the time. Do you have a come back that doesn't invovle some aspect of how blind, stupid or unable to get you we are?

Thank you for posting those pictures, Ann. As an ardent Vegetable Rights activist I know how important it is that we raise awareness of the plight of our vegetable siblings. That so many of them end up slaughtered on our dinner tables is a crying shame. Thank you for posting this art which is so evocative of the plight of the poor defenseless vegetable!;)

I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in. Ms. Althouse, you know you're in trouble when stranges poke their heads in to see you're as crazy as everyone else seems to think. You are. You should stay away from blogging, because your quirky thoughts are not particularly interesting, nor meaningful.

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.